CounterSpell Vs Flare

Play Mode Discussion
Why in the world does flare lose to counterspell? It gets countered by the only thing its meant to counter....
Because counterspell was played first and exists before you attempt to cast a spell

It's like counterspelling your counterspell
Because it's a spell, and counterspell counters spells...
02/18/2018 05:44 PMPosted by Schyla
Because counterspell was played first and exists before you attempt to cast a spell

It's like counterspelling your counterspell

You can't play flare first so your point is invalid...
I don't like how it works either, and I would like hunter to have a niche like that against mage where it can anti secret tech well regardless of the neutral secret tech options.
Eater of Secrets supersedes any secrets because of battlecry effect going first every time (this also applies to Kezan Mystic too). In the case of Counterspell and Flare interaction, Counterspell actually does what it describes since Flare is a spell.
Flare does not lose to counterspell. You're trading 1 for 1, with the mage spending one more mana than the hunter (unless the mage pulled some other shenanigans). If anything, flare wins against counterspell.
02/18/2018 05:45 PMPosted by Jed1Kn1ght
02/18/2018 05:44 PMPosted by Schyla
Because counterspell was played first and exists before you attempt to cast a spell

It's like counterspelling your counterspell

You can't play flare first so your point is invalid...


No, you just aren't thinking of it correctly.

Counterspell stops spells. It is played first
You then play a spell that is meant to stop secrets.
Counterspell comes first and stops the spell

It's really not hard.

Eater of secrets is a minion and counters the counterspell without counterspell being able to activate
Mtg had a mechanic for this called cant be countered Would have made flare better
02/18/2018 10:07 PMPosted by Urza
Mtg had a mechanic for this called cant be countered Would have made flare better


Why waste the manpower and time it would take to implement that when there's only one way to counter spells in the entire game?
02/18/2018 06:02 PMPosted by LZGTrooper
Flare does not lose to counterspell. You're trading 1 for 1, with the mage spending one more mana than the hunter (unless the mage pulled some other shenanigans). If anything, flare wins against counterspell.


Flare is meant to remove all secrets, most likely ice block or a combination of others, so its potential is lost when only counterspell is removed.
Flare should be changed to 0/0 weapon with battlecry that does what Flare does. Easy fix.
TBH this topic has been beaten to death already. And it still can go forever, because you could argue for the interaction to go either way and be correct. So, most likely nothing ever will be changed, whether we like it or not.

"Counterspell should trigger first, because it stops spells before they resolve, so it doesn't matter what the spell would do - even if it would remove Counterspell from play."

"Flare should trigger first, because its main purpose is to remove Secrets. A counter shouldn't be invalidated by the very thing it is supposed to remove."

02/18/2018 10:13 PMPosted by Slarg232
Why waste the manpower and time it would take to implement that when there's only one way to counter spells in the entire game?


Why make Counter a keyword then. Look closely on counterspell, it's bolded like a keyword, exclusive for this one card. The mechanic could be implemented wider than that.
If the opponent has more then one secret the hunter must risck a spell before play flare, and play it if the way is clear. if there is only one secret just cast flare, you remove that secret one way or another....
02/18/2018 05:41 PMPosted by Jed1Kn1ght
Why in the world does flare lose to counterspell?

Because Counterspell says it triggers WHEN a spell is cast, not AFTER a spell is cast.
TLDR: It's working as intended and is not broken.

It's just stupid.

/thread
02/18/2018 06:18 PMPosted by Schyla
02/18/2018 05:45 PMPosted by Jed1Kn1ght
...
You can't play flare first so your point is invalid...


No, you just aren't thinking of it correctly.

Counterspell stops spells. It is played first
You then play a spell that is meant to stop secrets.
Counterspell comes first and stops the spell

It's really not hard.

Eater of secrets is a minion and counters the counterspell without counterspell being able to activate


By your reasoning, if a mage played potion of polymorph or mirror entity, it should counter eater of secrets or get the same minion.

This is just plain wrong. Flare should destroy any secret including counterspell.
02/19/2018 07:48 AMPosted by Guldin
By your reasoning, if a mage played potion of polymorph or mirror entity, it should counter eater of secrets or get the same minion.

This is just plain wrong. Flare should destroy any secret including counterspell.


Said no one that knows how the game works. It's simple mechanics. Counterspell triggers WHEN you play a spell to stop said spell before the spell has a chance to work.

Mirror Entity and Potion of Polymorph do NOT interrupt a minion's battlecry effects, and specifically trigger after them. Come on now, at least understand the game first before making observations...
To everyone defending the mechanics. STOP

Please, you are sounding foolish.

You are correct. All your long winded descriptions of how spells work, and secrets, BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU'RE SO SMART!!! Omfg I concede!

Now, if you can get beyond your mechanical brains for 2 seconds...

Don't you think how it currently works is stupid?

Card designed to kill a secret is killed by a secret before it can kill the secret because it was killed by the secret that it was intended to kill....vomit..../facepalm

This is a theoretical discussion at this point, we heard your mechanical reasoning.

That being said, aside from Flare, they need something to replace Eater, 2 cents.
02/19/2018 08:27 AMPosted by Paf
Don't you think how it currently works is stupid?


No.

02/19/2018 08:27 AMPosted by Paf
Card designed to kill a secret is killed by a secret before it can kill the secret because it was killed by the secret that it was intended to kill....vomit..../facepalm


Yes, it makes complete sense. This is the ONLY secret in the entire game that does this. And the only spell in the entire game that destroys secrets. It's a stupid hill to wage a battle on just because of a personal issue, that likely was only triggered by poor judgement on the part of he who played the spell.

Should it be changed? I don't think so. I can understand if you think it seems weird, but I find absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum